RE: My Thoughts on User content, 3rd party content and conformance

In terms of user generated content – it is my opinion that sites do have an obligation to assist the person creating the content on that site to do create and post it in a way that could be made accessible. The type of obligations could be similar to authoring tool accessibility requirements such as allowing the user to add alt text and upload captions, providing alerts on accessibility, etc.

I also agree that while the ultimate accessibility of user generated content falls to the user when appropriate tools are in place – but that when user generated content is repurposed by the site then there would be a different bar for accessibility purposes.  This does go into the territory of regulation though as in the past regulators have considered carve outs for these different uses.

Jonathan

From: Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 12:34 PM
To: w3c-waI-gl@w3. org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: My Thoughts on User content, 3rd party content and conformance

I can’t make the conformance call due to conflicts but here are my thoughts if they are useful in the discussion


What is user entered content  (not part of the site) and third party for-hire content that is part of the site


  1.  user entered data is not part of page - and is not covered by WCAG.

     *   The page should be evaluated for conformance as authored by the vendor and any contractors the author hired to create the page
     *   For example — an email site -   ExampleEmailCompany.com  is responsible for the online email webapp being accessible,  but not for what users type into emails the send to others.

  1.  Third party provided parts of a page created by any contractors the author hired to are part of the page   and are covered by WCAG.

     *   These are considered as part of the page whether created by an employee of the company, a contract employee, or an outside contractor of the company (anyone paid by the company to create content for their site)
     *   For example — I have someone design my home page for me,    I have a second company create the site map for me,  and I have a third company do my search function and a 4th do my check out page.       All of those need to be accessible for me to claim accessibility of my site.   And since all are functions of the use of the site - I can't claim the other parts as accessible if these are not since these are part of the process of using the other pages in the site

PS  we should stop using the phrase  "third party content" (without a qualifier like "for hire" )  since it is ambiguous and has caused no end of arguments and misunderstandings.

I suggest we use the terms      "user-entered content"  and   "content for hire"
                 or, if you will      "user-entered 3rd party content"   and  "3rd party content for hire".

If here are other types of 3rd party content - then we should add them to the list — but I suggest we not even suggest that" 3rd party content" is a single topic.



What about  YouTube and FaceBook   ?


  *   they are examples of #1 above and are not part of the site  UNLESS the site is paying  a person or company to create content. (Paying in money or equiv) .

     *   For example —   I create a site where people can post things and share with other people.

        *   Since I am creating the site and the tools for posting —  I need to be sure the site and the tools need to be accessible.
        *   And (in the ATAG spirit) the tools also need to be capable of creating accessible content - but the tools are not responsible for its use.  (That is, The tool has to make it possible to create accessible content but it does not need to enforce WCAG on the content.)  (I’m not sure that this is actually a WCAG 2 requirement  - more ATAG - but for WCAG 3 I think we can and should include it if we can.)

  *   HOWEVER  — if the site pays the author for content (whether created with their tools or not) then it is no longer "user content"   —  it is"work for hire - that is part of the site" and it falls under #2 above and is covered.



The gray area of payment for visits to content — is policy

That still leaves a gray area — like YouTube — where an author is paid for the number of times their page is viewed on YouTube.    They are aren’t paid to post something —  but they are rewarded for the number of times someone views their posting.

My current thought is that that still falls under POLICY and outside of WCAG.

  *    Those videos are content on the page, not hired by the vendor, but created by the user and shared.
  *   LOTS of YouTube gets no revenue.
  *   And when they do - it is from advertisers (which YouTube being the intermediary of sorts).

At this point I feel that it is no longer a WCAG question but a legal or policy question as to whether that content needs to follow WCAG — if so - who is responsible for it

  *   I think WCAG can distinguish between   user content on a site — and "work for hire" that is PART of a site.
  *    But beyond that — (e.g. the YouTubers being paid based on views)  it is beyond WCAG defining what is part of a site and falls into policy as to whether the site owner needs to enforce WCAG  (or any other regulation) on the posters to the site or not.



Right to amend and expand
I of course - reserve the right to change my mind an any and all of the above - based on input from, and arguments of, others as we go forward.
But these are my thoughts at this juncture in the discussion.

( I also usually make at least 1 bad typo in a post this long — so let me know if anything doesnt make sense.    My wost tendency is to keep   typing not for now  and vice versa.   Unghh  Happens all the time…
So do ping me if anything seems to not make sense — or if you just disagree !    I never learn anything from agreements.      ( This applies to all my posts)

Best

gregg